hello,
After a while, I decided to try a kernel 2.6 on my laptop again (after
unsatisfying results with 2.6.1). 2.6.4 works, only one problem is left.
I have got the following onboard ethernet adaptor in my laptop:
02:08.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82801BA/BAM/CA/CAM Ethernet
Controller (rev 03)
One special thing about my setup may be that I'm using a mtu of only 1442,
because this way I don't have to reconfigure it every time I'm moving it
into a location with broken PMTU and some vpn tunnels. But in most
locations, the other hosts (including the gateway) use a standard mtu of
1500 on the ethernet, only my laptop is sending smaller packets.
This has till now never been a problem, I'm just sending smaller packets
and receiving the bigger ones.
But the e100 in kernel 2.6.4 just drops these packets, eepro100 and
orinoco_cs accept them just fine, as does my last kernel 2.4.23.
Reverting a part of
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/diffs/drivers/net/e100.c@xxx?nav=index.html|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/net|hist/drivers/net/e100.c
of e100.c with the following patch fixes it:
--- linux-2.6.4/drivers/net/e100.c-2.6.4 2004-03-13 03:37:06.000000000
+0100
+++ linux-2.6.4/drivers/net/e100.c 2004-03-13 03:38:53.000000000 +0100
@@ -1436,11 +1436,6 @@
/* Don't indicate if hardware indicates errors */
nic->net_stats.rx_dropped++;
dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
- } else if(actual_size > nic->netdev->mtu + VLAN_ETH_HLEN) {
- /* Don't indicate oversized frames */
- nic->net_stats.rx_over_errors++;
- nic->net_stats.rx_dropped++;
- dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
} else {
nic->net_stats.rx_packets++;
nic->net_stats.rx_bytes += actual_size;
What is the reason behind this check? Could it be removed from the
official sources again?
c'ya
sven
--
The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it.
(John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/)